India needs to re-visit its Tibet policy

The continuing border incursions by the Chinese PLA into the Indian borders with growing frequency, Chinese cartographic aggression as a part of well-calibrated strategy and openly showing areas of other neighbouring countries including India as parts of China in the passports issued by China, denying Indian military officers posted in J&K to be included in the delegations, declaring the visit of Indian PM to Arunachal Pradesh as illegal, etc. are factors that demand a change in India’s policy towards Tibet. Their aggressiveness has crossed all limits as they are indulging in highly provocative acts of stopping the Indian patrols from covering their area. These constitute a direct challenge to India’s sovereignty. In addition, the continuing human rights violations in Tibet resulting in Tibetans resorting to extreme step of committing suicide, which have crossed 100 in the last four years, themselves provide sufficient ground for India to change its policy towards Tibet.

A look at the history of Tibet too would reveal that the China invaded Tibet and has virtually converted it into its colony. Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when the Chinese forces were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet had enjoyed de facto independence and had opposed Chinese attempts to reassert control. Even prior to 1911, Tibet had only acknowledged suzerainty (and not sovereignty) of the Manchu Emperors and their control fluctuated between military presence to a nominal link. It is interesting to note that in history there were periods when China was under the suzerainty of the Tibetan Emperor. The Tibetan Emperor Trisong Detsan (755-797 A.D.) invaded parts of China including Chengan (now Xian) and forced China to pay tribute to Tibet and accept Tibetan suzerainty. In 1821 a treaty between Tibet and China was concluded that accepted that both the nations were independent.

The British, noting the situation, had always been treating Tibet as an autonomous region under the nominal Chinese suzerainty. British made several attempts after 1911 to bring China and Tibet together to accept this situation but the attempts always broke down on the issue of boundary between China and Tibet and not between Tibet and India. Eventually, the British presented the Chinese government in 1921 with a declaration to the effect that they did not feel justified in withholding any longer their recognition of the status of Tibet as an autonomous state under the suzerainty of China, and that they intended dealing on that basis with Tibet in the future. The British, after 1921, promised support to the Tibetan government in maintaining the latter’s practical autonomy which was considered important to the security of India and to the tranquillity of India’s north-eastern frontier. The above policy was clearly mentioned in the memorandum issued by the British government on 23rd June 1943. The British PM Antony Eden on November 5, 1945 reiterated this in writing to the Chinese foreign minister Dr TV Soong.

After 1947, the Indian authorities too continued with this policy. When China invaded Tibet in 1950, Sardar Patel then Deputy PM of India, in a note to the then secretary general in the external affairs ministry, Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai noting the implications of the Chinese moves in Tibet stated that the Chinese invasion had completely changed the security calculations and clearly pointed out that a serious danger was developing in the north and north east. He also agreed with the latter that ‘a reconsideration of our military position and a redisposition of our forces were inescapable.’ Sardar Patel later sent this note to the then Indian PM J L Nehru outlining the need for taking suitable action for India’s defence. He clearly spelt out the strategic implications in the following lines-

“We have also to take note of a thoroughly unscrupulous, unreliable and determined power practically at our doors. The invasion of Tibet in my judgment, entitles us to treat them with a certain amount of hostility, let alone a great deal of circumspection. In these circumstances, one thing, to my mind, is quite clear; and, that is, that we cannot be friendly with China and must think in terms of defence against a determined, calculating, unscrupulous, ruthless, and unprincipled and prejudiced combination of powers, of which the Chinese will be the spearhead.” He certainly had Pakistan in mind when he talked of combination of powers. In the detailed note to Bajpai, he had mentioned that the threat from the West and North West had not reduced. How accurate his assessment was can be seen in the present context.

Unfortunately India’s policy of non-interference allowed the Chinese government to impose 17-Point Agreement on Tibet under duress. The immediate consequence of this was that the Indo-Tibetan border became Sino-Indian border – a situation the British had tried to avoid at all costs. The trade agreement signed in 1954 was based on Panchsheel principles and that in effect buried the de facto independent Tibet nation. After this, India in the hope of managing China, signed a number of agreements that showed that India had accepted Tibet as an autonomous region of China. These included Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border of 1993, Agreement between China and India on the Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field along the Line of Actual Control in the India- China Border Areas of 1996, Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation of People’s Republic of China and Republic of India of 2003 and Agreement between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of India-China Boundary Question of 2005. The text of these high sounding agreements would reflect that both sides would not do anything that would increase tension on the border and that both sides are sincere in resolving the issue through peaceful means. However, the Chinese actions have been contrary to the contents of agreements.

In addition to the lack of sincerity on the part of the Chinese in making these agreements, these agreements could not be implemented as there was no agreement on the length of the Sino-Indian border. While China does not include the area of J&K and considers Arunachal Pradesh as part of Tibet, India considers the entire length of the border between Tibet and India as Sino-Indian border. With this ambiguity, there are bound to be problems in the resolution of the issue. However, these agreements placed India in a disadvantageous position. India in these agreements accepted the Tibetan Autonomous Region as a part of China without obtaining any commitment from China on the issue of J&K or Arunachal Pradesh. Even after 2003 agreement, which agreed to the establishment of a trading mart in Nathula in Sikkim, Chinese maps continued to show Sikkim as an independent nation. Whenever, this issue was raised, the Chinese authorities brushed it aside by saying that they had inherited this from history and there was no need to give importance to the issue.

Basic issue is not what China is projecting through various statements and agreements but it is the intention of China towards India, which needs to be analysed in the light of its activities. Several experts have pointed out that China has encircled India by developing its strategic relations in our neighbourhood and desires to keep India under pressure so that it may it may not emerge as a strong nation. The Chinese activities certainly reveal this intention. China in the name of “Four Modernization” focussed on developing its armed forces and building infrastructure along the border. The recent aggressiveness shown in all the bordering areas reflects the intents of grabbing all the disputed areas along the Chinese borders. Its continued assistance in nuclear and missile fields to Pakistan is certainly affecting India’s security and this cannot be regarded as a friendly act.

On the other hand some writers point out that Xi Jinping the Chinese President has told the Indian PM that China wants to settle the boundary question soon and therefore India should give some time more to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping in the “Five Point” proposal had committed that both sides would accommodate each other’s core concerns and would reconcile bilateral disagreements amicably is underlined by them. To strengthen their argument they highlight that the fact that China had settled the boundary disputes with 12 other nations and there was give and take. Hence they argue that there is a possibility that China with the changed leadership may make serious efforts to resolve the boundary dispute with India.

On balance when the Chinese motives are analysed in the backdrop of continued anti-India activities, the view of the first category of experts appears to be correct. The Chinese leaders in the past had also made statements indicating their desire to amicably settle the issue. Late Sri Brijesh Mishra as the Indian envoy was told by Mao himself that the two countries should continue to fight. Deng also told the then Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi that the two countries should forge closer relations. Even Hu Jintao had expressed similar views. However the Chinese activities reflect that they have different plans and the Chinese continue with their intrusions without paying any attention to the Indian core concerns. The talks of the Chinese leaders when seen in the light of their activities only reveal their duplicitous nature.

The justification for the change in the policy towards Tibet is in fact provided by the Chinese themselves. Notwithstanding so many agreements, if the Chinese authorities are not considering the J&K as a part of India, India is fully justified in not treating the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of China. What India needs to discuss is the return of the territory illegally occupied by China in J&K. Rest is the border between India and Tibet, which should be discussed with the latter. India should declare that the length of India-China border is only limited to the J&K part that touches China. India at the same time stop policy of accommodating Chinese wishes by not sending officers from J&K or Arunachal Pradesh. Such acts actually go against our national interests by giving the impression that India is prepared to accept such demands. This does not mean that India and China would go to war but would establish that India can react against unjust demands of China. India –China trade, which is highly in favour of China, is yet another leverage against China and can be effectively used. The India-China trade deficit increased by 34% against India in the first five months of this year over the last year. The Chinese PM had recently come to India with a large delegation of the Chinese companies. The Chinese companies should be placed in the category of companies from the countries of concern and should not be given facilities to operate.

In addition, the continued human rights violations in Tibet demand suitable response from India. India being the neighbouring country cannot turn a blind eye to the happenings in Tibet. In fact this in itself is a sufficient reason for changing our policy towards Tibet. The Tibetans today remain marginalised. China has settled Hans by giving them incentives, with the result that in Lhasa and other urban centres Hans are in majority. The Asia Watch Report of 1990 had pointed out that in Amdo (Qinghai), Kham (Sichuan) and Lhasa Hans had outstripped the locals. The Tibet Youth Congress has also noted that recently that about 2 million Tibetans have been relocated since 2006. The unemployment among the Tibetans is increasing. The Tibetans cannot join as guides for tourists as the fluency in Mandarin is essential. In addition, as the locals have been moved to rural areas, they are not in a position to take advantage of the flourishing tourism in Tibet. Recently, Tibetans in Canada had protested against the Chinese policy of removing the Tibetans from urban areas and settling them in rural areas.

However, what is hurting the Tibetans most is the attack on religion of Tibetans. Dalai Lama, who is the spiritual head of Tibetans, is being demonised by the Chinese authorities. The real Panchen Lama, Gedhun Cheokyi Nyima, was imprisoned along with his family in 1995 and they selected their own man as Panchen Lama. In addition laws have been imposed which say that no one with criminal cases can join monasteries. The Chinese slap charges on all those who are considered to be anti-Chinese. And by the State Administration for Religious Affairs bill of 2007, all Lamas who wish to re-incarnate are required to obtain permission from the Government and that re-incarnation has to take place only in China.

The Chinese authorities are getting concerned about their vulnerabilities and therefore are trying to project that they intend to take necessary steps by changing their policies. The Chinese are aware that much of the economic development of China is due to the exploitation of natural resources of Tibet and they need them. Recent comments of Professor Jin Wei in Yazhou Zhoukan (Asia Weekly), a Chinese weekly in Hong Kong on June 9, 2013, and the reported proposals for new approach suggest that the current hard-line policy on Tibet is being questioned. The Chinese authorities may also be worried about the continued latent militancy in Tibet and suicides by Tibetans.

In sum, the security and foreign policies should be dictated by the strategic vision. The border incidents should not be treated as localized affairs. By saying this, Indian leadership is encouraging China to continue with their intrusions. The security establishment of the country and experts have been demanding a change in the policy to protect our national interests. It is well known that there are no permanent friends and no perennial enemies, what is permanent are our national interests. Tibet is not merely a strategic card against China but also the responsibility of India to support Tibetans against the continued human rights violations.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Be the first one to review.

Author

S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Mechanism (2008-2010), which was constituted to review the functioning of the intelligence agencies. He has taught at the departments of defence studies and history at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Illinois, US, in the department of arms control and disarmament studies. The ministry of defence had utilized his services for the preparation of official accounts of the 1971 war and the counterinsurgency operations in the northeast. In the JIC/National Security Council secretariat, he was closely involved with the preparation of the reports of the Kargil Review Committee and the Group of Ministers on national security as also with the implementation of their recommendations. His publications include two books and several articles.

S D Pradhan has served as chairman of India's Joint Intelligence Committee. He has also been the country's deputy national security adviser. He was chairman. . .